Iowa Governor Frees Inmate After 25 Years

Associated Press ^ | April 18, 2003 | MIKE WILSON

[new cruelty]

A man who spent nearly 26 years in prison on a recently overturned murder conviction walked out of state prison Thursday after Gov. Tom Vilsack signed a reprieve.

Terry Harrington's relatives met him at the Clarinda Correctional Facility and had a Humvee stretch limousine waiting to take him to the family's home in Omaha, Neb.

"Oh God, it's good," Harrington, 44, said as he stepped outside. "It's so good. Thank you, Jesus."

He thanked his lawyers, the parole board and Vilsack for the reprieve, a temporary order sometimes issued to postpone executions but especially rare in Iowa, which does not have the death penalty.

Harrington was a teenager when he was convicted in the 1977 shooting death of John Schweer, a retired Council Bluffs police officer working as a security guard at a local car dealership.

The Iowa Supreme Court overturned Harrington's conviction in February, based on new evidence that prosecutors withheld police reports pointing to another suspect and that the state's key witness had recanted his testimony.

Inmates usually are freed in such cases while prosecutors determine whether to seek a new trial. Harrington, however, had remained in prison because the attorney general's office had challenged language in the ruling that did not directly affect Harrington's case, but could affect others.

Vilsack, who learned this month that Harrington was still in prison, asked the Iowa Board of Parole to review the case, writing that the inmate "has seemingly been placed in bureaucratic limbo." The governor signed the reprieve after the board recommended it Thursday.

Pottawattamie County Attorney Matthew D. Wilber said he was disappointed the governor chose to interject himself in the case, and added that prosecutors intend to retry Harrington.

[Teacher317]

The Iowa Supreme Court overturned Harrington's conviction in February, based on new evidence that prosecutors withheld police reports pointing to another suspect

Are they required to present those? Precisely what procedural rule was violated there?

and that the state's key witness had recanted his testimony.

Does that mean he didn't do it? How many witnesses did not recant? I wish they'd provide a few more facts.

[Lysander]

...based on new evidence that prosecutors withheld police reports pointing to another suspect and that the state's key witness had recanted his testimony.

Happens fairly often.

[blackdog]

I find it so curious that the prosecutorial creed allows no consideration for admission of error. Why does an elected governor have to make apologies for career employees who conduct themselves in an unethical, if not illegal manner.

Part of having a justice system which has integrity is to expect prosecutorial misconduct to be the end of someones legal career.

Why do we have lower courts at all any more? Remember, there was no new evidence here, just prosecutorial gamesmanship that took over 20 years to go far enough up the food chain. Funny how anyone who's been a victim of judicial or prosecutorial misconduct has to serve enough time that the original judge and prosecutor are either dead or confused with alzheimers in order to get the facts heard.

[iowaboy]

Being from IA, I can say that our governor is an abomination. So is our illustrious "dung-heap/paper tiger" Senator Harkin.

[blackdog]

I've seen a lot of scenario's where the discovery of police reports seems to occur in the same time-frame of retirement of officers who may have had direct knowlege in the case.

Clearing up one's conscious and desk at the same time.

Yes, a lot more info would be helpful here.

[waterstraat]

If this guy was innocent, and served 26 years for nothing, then what do you do if he commits a crime now? Does he get "credit" for his 26 years?

[spunkets]

"Are they required to present those? Precisely what procedural rule was violated there?"

It's part of a process called discovery. All parties are supposed to be interested in justice. Before trial the opposing sides are required to turn over all relevant info. Relevant means at least one party thinks it is. That way the withholding of evidence should not occur. For the particulars, the rules of the jurisdiction you're interested in should be looked at.

[Pfesser]

Lower Appeals Courts, for the most part, only have the authority to review a case if there was an "error of law". Appeals courts do not hear cases involving "errors of fact". They do not hear new evidence or witnesses. They only hear arguments from lawyers regarding whether due process was followed. That is why governors in state cases or the President in federal cases have the authority to grant pardons and reprieves. They may decide if errors of fact have occurred.

[Teacher317]

Okay, but what kind of defense lawyer would fail to look at the police reports in preparing his case? How could the prosecutor have prevented him/her from seeing them?

[blackdog]

Would not due process in this and other cases be defined by the police bringing to discovery all the relevant police reports in any case? Is the prosecution to function by bringing forth only those reports which implicate a suspect, or are they required to also provide reports which may offer innocence?

IMHO I would also like prosecutors to be prohibited from running for political office. Justice should be just that. Not what cases a prosecutor wants to feather his/her resume with for political posturing.

[lawdude]

"Are they required to present those?"

Under the Rules of Criminal Procedure, the prosecution is to provide any excuplatory evidence in a case. Remember, he was innocent until proven guilty and it would seem that there was evidence showing just that. See Rules of Criminal Procedure 15.1 (This is the Arizona Rule but I suspect most states use the same standards).

[lawdude]

"How could the prosecutor have prevented him/her from seeing them?"

If you don't know that a supplemental report was prepared, you can't ask for it. I am going to court today to force a Prosecutor to order an police officer to appear (make himelf available) for an interview regarding a simple crimonal matter.

Defense attorneys spend a lot of time trying to enforce discovery rules. Most often it is not the desire of a prosecutor to withhold evidence, rather it is the fact that they are overloaded.

[only1percent]

Failure to turn over exculpatory evidence to the defense is, and should be, a "get out jail free" card. Short of perjury by police or other prosecution witnesses, it is the gravest intentional violation of a defendant's rights, and always has been thought of as such, long before Miranda and the like started to protect criminals from their own confessions and other incriminating conduct.

[CurlyDave]

The Iowa Supreme Court overturned Harrington's conviction in February, based on new evidence that prosecutors withheld police reports pointing to another suspect

I am usually against more laws & regulation, but we need a new one here. The original prosecutors and all LE personnel who knew about the police reports but did not bring them up should be immediately jailed for a period of time equal to the defendant's original conviction.

Sure we should have a trial to see if they really did commit this crime, but they get to sit in jail while the trial is being conducted.

The prosecution has all the resources of the government behind it, including as much police time & manpower as they can get. Plus, when asked to produce records and evidence, the public generally cooperates with LE much more than with a defendant.

Defendant has limited resources and usually can not even gather evidence for himself because he is in jail.

Discovery is supposed to make things more even, but even if the rules are followed, it frequently does not.

In cases where the prosecution has deliberately flaunted the rules there should be a huge penalty.

[Teacher317]

Thanks! (I have Criminal Procedure I scheduled for next semester, but I may have to drop it for scheduling some work hours in.)

[Artem55]

Amen to that. Governor Bilgesack is absolutely useless as is Tom Harkin (scientific name dungheapius harkinus)

[Sci Fi Guy]

Does he get "credit" for his 26 years?

I believe that if he can seek compensation. 26 years of wages plus interest.

[only1percent]

Well said.

Conservatives sometimes fail to realize how important it is for rights of defendants to be respected, if we are to preserve a strong regime of law and order, and keep long sentences for career criminals and the death penalty for heinous murderers.

Soft-on-crime liberals like nothing better than -- and nothing serves their cause better than -- conservatives who don't seem to care about due process. Most of Clinton's judicial appointees are reasonably disposed in favor of law and order -- but they are uniformly susceptible to the blandishments of the legal-academic elite, and would easily vote to strike down many aspects of current criminal law policy as unconstitutional if given reason to believe that it was part of a conservative plot to disregard defendant's rights, not to protect citizens from crime. And, God help us, if the economy continues its decline and we get stuck with President Kerry in January, 2005 -- his judges will be soft-on-crime from the get-go, and together with the Clinton judges, we could see the death penalty and mandatory minimums struck down by 2009, or even sooner.

[only1percent]

The legal standard to win damages for false imprisonement is very, very high. Wrongful imprisonment cases get settled for a relative pittance, $100,000 or $200,000 or so after legal fees, unless there's a truly huge smoking gun (like an internal memo from a detective to a D.A. saying, "I know this guy's innocent, but I say let the bastard fry anyway.")